Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla's 100,000th Bug

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the congratulations-it's-a-bug dept.

Mozilla 304

benb writes: "bugzilla.mozilla.org just hit bug 100,000 (cached). This proves its scalability. BugZilla is used to track work on Mozilla. Every change has to have a bug. This includes new features and bugs found by developers/testers during development (bugs that never reached users). We also get a lot of duplicates (which dedicated triagers sort out). So, the number of filed closed bugs cannot be used as criteria of the quality of Mozilla. During usage, BugZilla evolved to a very comfortable web platform for filing/tracking bugs, one that has only very few competition (of which I know). Examples are the emailing and dependency systems. In fact, BugZilla is probably the most important communication medium used in the Mozilla project (apart from the source code itself)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

100,000 bugs? (1)

VaultX (146268) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308652)

you would imagine most larger projects had this many bugs, if they counted each and every one..

Re:100,000 bugs? Mostly duplicates (1)

Jagin (243283) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308700)

Did you read the submission properly? They're mostly duplicates... people submitting bugs that others already have. Bugzilla's email replying facility looks to be a real cool feature! I wonder... does SourceForge's bug tracker have anything close to this?

Re:100,000 bugs? Mostly duplicates (2)

keesh (202812) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308710)

Yep, if you post a bug there's a checkbox to be notified of replies, changes etc. by email.

Re:100,000 bugs? Mostly duplicates (2)

Doc Hopper (59070) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308866)

More than just a checkbox on the bug, really. You have an entire user preferences dialog for each user where you can indicate your preferences on bugmail for various states of the bug, whether you're on the CC list or you reported it, that kind of thing. It works pretty well.

One unused feature of Bugzilla at bugzilla.mozilla.org is the ability to reply to bugmail and have it tacked into the database. Many others use this feature, however; you can find the Bugzilla email interface and associated documentation in the contrib/ directory when you download the Bugzilla 2.14 tarball.

However, be warned that the email reply feature is not as thoroughly tested as the web interface. This is another reason for it not to be in use at B.M.O. There are currently a couple of notable problems with it:
1. Even if a user account is disabled, they can still add comments to bugs, or create new ones, by sending email to the bugmail reply address.
2. It's case-sensitive on usernames, so if your capitalization isn't correct on your From: header it will refuse to update the bug.
3. You can't currently change parameters of the bug through bugmail (ergo: setting @priority=1 in the mail doesn't work).

It would be great to have a new developer help improve the Bugzilla Mail Interface. Nobody's paid much attention to it for about a year, since Seth Landsman stopped maintaining it. Any takers?

WARNING ABOUT CACHED LINK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308832)

Warning, the cached link in the story is a cached goatse.cx [goatse.cx] link. You have been warned.

First Prost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308653)

First Prost!

bugzilla is great (0)

gavlil (255585) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308654)

bugzilla is a cool idea - like all ideas its simple, works well and you know that you should have though of it first.

its thigns like bugzilla and cvs that have made free(beer) what it is today.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308655)

fp?

This isGood News? (-1)

sucko (257144) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308657)

It takes a certain type of zelot to turn 100,000 bugs into good news.

Re:This isGood News? (-1)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308662)

If this was IE, there would be hell to pay.

Re:This isGood News? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308872)

Fuck cyborg_monkey. Fuck mackga. Fuck evil_spork. Fuck motherfuckin_spork. Fuck asbestos_diaper. Fuck pig_testicle. Fuck Vladinator. Fuck flikx. Fuck Slashdot. Fuck trolls. Fuck crapflooders. Fuck all you wannabe trolls. Fuck America. Fuck John Ashcroft. Fuck George W Bush. Fuck Congress. Fuck the White House. Fuck the Pentagon. Fuck freedom of speech. Fuck freedom of the press. Fuck freedom from unfair search and seizure. Fuck freedom of assembly. Fuck freedom of religion. Fuch liberty. Fuck peace. Fuck the Constitution. Fuck rights. Fuck freedom. Fuck Christianity. Fuck justice. Fuck everything America stands for. Fuck opportunity. Fuck your way of life. Fuck niggers. Fuck kikes. Fuck whites. Fuck order. Fuck you. Fuck all of you. Fuck everything. Fuck you. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.

Adequacy is dying. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308666)

You don't need to be a streetlawyer [geocities.com] to predict Adequacy.org [adequacy.org] 's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Adequacy [adequacy.org] faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Adequacy.org [adequacy.org] because Adequacy [adequacy.org] is dying. Things are looking
very bad for Adequacy [adequacy.org] . As many of us are already aware, Adequacy [adequacy.org] continues to lose site traffic.

Let's try to keep the facts and look at the numbers.

Slashdot [slashdot.org] leader Rob "CmdrTaco" [cmdrtaco.net] Malda states that there are about 5000 semi-regular posters to Slashdot.org [slashdot.org] . How many users of Geekizoid [geekizoid.com] are there? The ratio of Slashdot [slashdot.org] to Geekizoid [geekizoid.com] posts is roughly in ratio of 100 to 1. Therefore there are about 5000/100 = 50 occasional Geekizoid [geekizoid.com] posters. The ratio of Adequacy [adequacy.org] posters to Geekizoid [geekizoid.com] posters is about 5 to 1. Therefore there are 50 * 5 = 250 occasional posters to Adequacy.org [adequacy.org] . This is approximately equal to the number of editors [adequacy.org] listed on Adequacy [adequacy.org] 's website added to the eleven non-editors who read the site.

Traffic [adequacy.org] to Adequacy [adequacy.org] continues to diminish. In July 2001, Adequacy [adequacy.org] received approximately 160,000 pageviews. In August, Adequacy [adequacy.org] received only 80,000 pageviews. The number of pageviews in September (as of September 11) is 60,000, a
paltry 37% of its July traffic. At current rates, the amount of Adequacy [adequacy.org] traffic will hit 0 by the end of the year.

According to Netcraft [netcraft.com] , Adequacy [adequacy.org] 's situation is grim. Due to the troubles of Speakeasy DSL [speakeasy.org] , DoS attacks and so on, Adequacy [adequacy.org] was forced out of business and was taken over by JAT Computer Consulting [jatnet.com] which hosts another troubled website [geekizoid.com] . Now JAT Computer Consulting [jatnet.com] is also dying, its corpse being turned over to another charnal house.

All major surveys show that Adequacy [adequacy.org] has steadily declined in readership. Adequacy [adequacy.org] is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Adequacy [adequacy.org] is to survive at all it will be among right-wing maniacs [mynra.com] , Libertarians [nazi.org] , and trolls [slashdot.org] . Adequacy [adequacy.org] continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle [thepope.org] could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Adequacy.org [adequacy.org]
is dead.

Bugzilla rocks, indeed. (2, Interesting)

rekoil (168689) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308667)

My company (a mid-sized national ISP) uses it for internal development/bug tracking. Who else?

Re:Bugzilla rocks, indeed. (2)

spudnic (32107) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308723)

We use it in our development company. We set up a system for each project we are working on. Clients can review our work as we develop it. They can then submit bugs, suggestions, concerns, and feature requests.

It has definately cut down on the time we spend on the phone with them, and the clients like the idea that they can go in and see how and when we are addressing each of their submissions.

In 2 years, will the Mozilla team possibly be remembered as "the guys who wrote bugzilla" instead of "the guys who wrote mozilla"?

Re:Bugzilla rocks, indeed. (3, Informative)

Doc Hopper (59070) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308784)

I think it's very possible that mozilla.org may become better known for Bugzilla than Mozilla : ) Bugzilla is already the premier open-source bug-tracking system; I consider it a really good point in the favor of any company if they are using it.
However, I must caution that it's still a real pain to install on Microsoft Windows, and requires non-trivial UNIX knowledge to make work on a UNIX platform. Also, it's heavily geared towards Apache web server, since that's what B.M.O. uses and most of those admins running Bugzilla use it. AFAIK it still works fine on iPlanet and IIS, but you need to implement your own security to protect certain critical files from remote inspection. There's a file we use called "localconfig" which contains your database password; that file must not be readable by web users!

If you're an admin for an enterprise looking for a high-quality bug tracker, I highly recommend Bugzilla. If all you're looking to do is track bugs on a very small product, or if you're not an experienced admin on your platform of choice for Bugzilla, a mailing list is probably much more the thing for you. I love Bugzilla, but like most other enterprise-class software, it can be difficult to get up and configured correctly, particularly if you don't already have the necessary prerequisite packages already installed.

Re:Bugzilla rocks, indeed. (1)

Baumann (238242) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308770)

We use it as well, with appropriate hacks. It was fairly easy to tie in with our change control system, and the developers can't totally ignore their bugs - email is a bitch at times :)

I wish we could here (1)

barzok (26681) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308783)

But our clients insist on brain-dead-simple software (oversimplified, actually; they simply refuse to learn or listen to anything technical) to use. We've shelled out big money for Visual Intercept and they're not even totally happy with that.

Re:Bugzilla rocks, indeed. (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308844)

The only downside is that Bugzilla is slanted towards bug tracking. Is anyone using it for more general task tracking (support requests, for example, or something completely unrelated to computers)?

What customizations to Bugzilla would be necessary to do that?

Winamp uses it! (2, Interesting)

leibnizme (264472) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308892)

Winamp has been using Bugzilla for the last year to assist in developing the new Winamp 3. It's certainly great for developers, provided that they have a dedicated user base that's willing to "weed out" bad or duplicate bugs. It's also great for users who are beta testing - then we can know which bugs they know about, without e-mailing the developers and wasting their time.

While Winamp's Bugzilla doesn't have the same magnitude as Mozilla's, it's still quite valuable.

Winamp Bugzilla [nullsoft.com]

amusing (-1)

helstar (172465) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308669)

Didn't windows 2k get published with something like 64k bugs? And mozzilla which is just a web browser already has 100k? Doesn't that just tell ya something?

Re:amusing (2, Troll)

RogrWilco (522139) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308687)

1) Windows 2000 was not a new creation
2) Many of the bugs are duplicates
3) The fact that they track and repair every bug is a testament to open source
4) Mozilla is an evolving project, which means as more technologies are introduced, more work needs to be done
5) Have you ever written a program the scope of Mozilla without having any bugs on the first go?

Re:amusing (0)

INicheI (513673) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308693)

Yeah, and not even a very good browser.

Re:amusing (0)

gavlil (255585) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308731)

Didn't windows 2k get published with something

like 64k bugs? And mozzilla which is just a web browser already has 100k? Doesn't that just tell ya something?


but windows was released with 64k bugs unfixed moz has had bugs fixed and the 1.0 release will have few bugs without having to wait for service pack 2.

Re:amusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308738)

No, it doesn't tell you anything. The number 100 000 tells you that 100 000 bugs has been reportet against Mozilla and other products of mozilla.org since bugzilla was opened. Most of the bugs are fixed, and many open bugs are duplicates, feature request and some are plain nonsense (e.g. the 100 000th bug itself!)

roast beef (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308671)

In your asshole.

Yes.

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 20 seconds between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.

It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

If you this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to Source Forge:

Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.

scalability (0, Troll)

jas79 (196511) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308672)

"bugzilla.mozilla.org just hit bug 100 000 (cached). This proves its scalability"
If you wanted to prove the scalability you should have posted the real link not a chached one.
100 000 records is not much.

Re:scalability (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308690)

Here you go this is a link to the uncached version [mozilla.org] . Enjoy.

Re:scalability (1)

mkelley (411060) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308695)

I think this was a way to avoid slashdotting the Mozilla server.

Re:scalability (1)

Jagin (243283) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308717)

They're talking about the scalability of the system to handle a large amount of records -- so that developers are not overwhelmed. Its about system architecture -- NOT about the scalability of their servers and whether or not the hardware can handle the slashdot effect.

Re:scalability (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308775)

Oh, yes, let's /. Bugzilla again.

Look, I can't blame anyone for linking to a cached copy of a page in a /. article.

Re:scalability (3, Insightful)

Doc Hopper (59070) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308860)

It is, unfortunately, true that Bugzilla is fairly easily swamped by massive traffic. We encourage the use of mod_throttle on Apache for just this reason. Often, web spiders attempt to index publicly-available Bugzilla sites, and that can basically amount to a denial-of-service attack.

I think you'll find this is true with most heavily dynamic, database-driven web sites. I'd ultimately love to get better scalability than Slashdot out of Bugzilla, but in the near-term we're trying to avoid dependencies on mod_perl and certain other areas of performance enhancement because they cause dependencies on certain types of web servers.

There is some heavy discussion going on amongst the Bugzilla developers about using some kind of caching method to prevent slashdotting of Bugzilla in the future, but for now it's not there. Contributions welcome!

Re:scalability (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308889)

Mozilla's Bugzilla is running on hardware designed to cope with the Mozilla development team, not the Mozilla development team + 100,000 Slashdot readers.

Mozzilla may soon surpass Microsoft... (1)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308673)

... as the most bugs. What was the quote earler? 250,000 bugs in the latest release of MS's software?

Now if I could just get the browser to run in a stable, repeatable manner AND not have website CC submision pages crash it out....

Re:Mozzilla may soon surpass Microsoft... (5, Funny)

cyberdonny (46462) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308686)

What was the quote earler? 250,000 bugs in the latest release of MS's software?

I think it was actually only around 65535. More than that, and their excellent bug tracking software overflows...

Re:Mozzilla may soon surpass Microsoft... (3, Funny)

Ded Bob (67043) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308755)

I think it was actually only around 65535. More than that, and their excellent bug tracking software overflows...

Good thing they at least don't sign their shorts or else we would be seeing only 32767.

Also, it does not overflow for Microsoft; they just think they have eliminated a lot of bugs when the bits cycle around.

Re:Mozzilla may soon surpass Microsoft... (1)

benb (100570) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308840)

> I think it was actually only around 65535

Right. But those were *open* bugs, while the 100000 bugs in bugzilla are *all* bugs, incl. closed ones. Open bugs in bugzilla.mozilla.org are about 18000, some of which are not about the Mozilla appsuite (but BugZilla, the website etc.) and some of which are enhancement requests.

But looking at Microsoft, you have to remember that this was a whole operating system, probably including the web browser, the web server and all the other little applications that ship with it. So, those 65000 bugs are not as high as it might first look like.

Re:Mozzilla may soon surpass Microsoft... (1)

jdh28 (19903) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308878)

As I remember, the 63K "bugs" also included requests for enhancements, etc, too.

john

Re:Mozzilla may soon surpass Microsoft... (1)

hwaara (226026) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308858)

Now if I could just get the browser to run in a stable, repeatable manner AND not have website CC submision pages crash it out....

Report a bug! ;)

[OT] What does Slashdot mean with this? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308674)


Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

BSD owns Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308675)

first BSD owns Linux post.

Typical comment (0, Offtopic)

MrEd (60684) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308676)

*insert cheeky Mozilla-bashing joke here*


*insert cheeky commercial software bashing joke here*


*insert typical-comment bashing joke here*


*recurse*


Of course, now I have to put a bunch of text in so that the compression filter will let me post. Fucking filters.

100,000 bugs proves scalability? (2, Funny)

Xpilot (117961) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308681)

Lots of bugs == high scalability ;)

If that's the case imagine how scalable Windows is!

Re:100,000 bugs proves scalability? (1)

sconest (188729) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308707)

Scalability of Bugzilla was meant, I guess

100,000 = scalability? (1, Insightful)

NineNine (235196) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308688)

You guys may want to wake up. Real-world business applications go far, far beyond 100,000 records. I certainly wouldn't call 100,000 'scalable'. Hell, MS Access can handle 100,000 records just fine. Try 100,000,000. Then we can start talking about scalable.

Scalable at 100,000 records? Feh! (4, Funny)

kawika (87069) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308689)

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that someone has tried to attack the bug-tracking problem. But 100K records isn't even a decent test case for most big database projects. A database I use has a table with 70 million records and another with 20 million. Bugzilla will need to handle those kind of numbers if it is going to be used to track large software projects like Windows XP. ;-)

Re:Scalable at 100,000 records? Feh! (2)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308727)

A database I use has a table with 70 million records and another with 20 million.

I didn't think that Bugzilla was comparing itself to a database. In fact, if you want to make database comparisons, you would need to compare the database that Bugzilla uses against your database.

I believe the author's point is that Bugzilla has been successfully used through a lifetime of over 100,000 bug / issue reports. This would probaby be considered ample testing to prove that the system was capable of being used in large project environments.

If you want to make a case against scalability, you will need to point out another bug tracking system that has recently tracked more issues on a single project (or group of related projects). Something other than Microsoft's bug tracking software, please. ;)

Bugzilla will need to handle those kind of numbers if it is going to be used to track large software projects like Windows XP. ;-)

On the other hand, maybe if Bugzilla doesn't work so well, it will be incentive to keep the number of bugs at a minimum. Would that be a good method of improving the code quality during the first pass? :-)

Re:Scalable at 100,000 records? Feh! (1)

pacc (163090) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308766)

I believe the author's point is that Bugzilla has been successfully used through a lifetime of over 100,000 bug / issue reports.

Yes, they must have had the foresightness to allow for such large numbers in the lookup URL.
Totally useless information...

If you can't keep the size of the bugreports to, say, 10% of the code size noone could possibly care to fix the code anyway - the only good measure for scalability would be the number of active bugs

Re:Scalable at 100,000 records? Feh! (2)

Doc Hopper (59070) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308759)

Bugzilla is tracking 100,000 bugs. However, each bug tracks the following states:
Product
Component
Status
Resolution
Assigned_to
QA Contact
URL
Summary
Status Whiteboard
Keywords
Platform
OS
Version
Priority
Severity
Unlimited CC's
Attachments
Dependencies
Votes
Comments
History

At a bare minimum, there are at least 20 fields associated with each bug. In general, though, there are several large user comments, attachments containing patches, etc. for each bug. Figure 25 fields as a nice round number. 100,000 Bugzilla bugs >= 2.5 million individual records. Bugzilla.mozilla.org may not be in the 20 or 30 million league, but it's certainly getting there.

I use Bugzilla on a daily basis, and am also the documentation maintainer for the project. After using it since shortly after it was released, I can say without equivocation that it is more feature-rich, easier to use, and scalable than any other bug-tracking system I've seen. As the first full-featured open-source bug-tracking system released, it has a lot of first-mover support from developers and documentors, and is getting enormously better with each new release.

Go check it out, pre-populate 20 million bugs in your own database, and see what you think! I think you'll be impressed.

Sorry if this is too glowing a review; you should expect a biased opinion from those who have used Bugzilla for any length of time : )

25 fields * 100,000 records == 100,000 records. (2)

MemRaven (39601) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308778)

Each field is a column in a row. Thus 100,000 bugs == 100,000 rows, 100,000 bugs == 100,000 records. 100,000 bugs != 20 million bugs.

Re:Scalable at 100,000 records? Feh! (1)

benb (100570) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308884)

> there are several large user comments

Right. Each comment is a record of its own. And some bugs are, printed out, as long as 50+ letter pages. A bug with 10 comments is probably average, some have hundreds of them.

Re:Scalable at 100,000 records? Feh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308808)

Keep in mind that 100 000 records is only the number of records in ONE TABLE!!

There are other tables including votes, dependencies, 50 000+ users, everything that happens to a bug after it is filed gets saved into a bug tracking table with probably well over 1-2 million bug changes (for status, cc, resolution, component changes, etc) and who knows how many bug comments there are stored.

All in all, the database as a whole is quite impressive! If your database has 100 000 000 records in one table, then I pity you. You should know better than to assume there were only 100 000 records in Bugzilla.

10,000 Bugs ?!? (-1, Offtopic)

Spacelem (189863) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308699)

Really? Where? I haven't noticed them!

Re:10,000 Bugs ?!? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308735)

Really? Where? I haven't noticed them!

Well that's because they're being obscured by 90,000 bugs. ;-)

Re:10,000 Bugs ?!? (1)

Spacelem (189863) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308757)

All right, I'll be honest, there are one or two little annoyances I have with Mozilla, but I'm still really impressed by the whole project and I'm going to keep using it.

Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds (3, Troll)

rcharbon (123915) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308701)

bugzilla.mozilla.org just hit bug 100 000...the number of filed closed bugs cannot be used as criteria of the quality of Mozilla

Keep this in mind the next time you're dumping on M$ for announcing they've fixed thousands of bugs in a Windows product

Re:Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds (1)

RogrWilco (522139) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308712)

Now if they only woudn't call it a new version and charge for it....

Re:Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308772)

Now if they only woudn't call it a new version and charge for it....

You mean the way Netscape used to (and still would be if MS hadn't started giving IE away). Netscape was far and away the worst company I have ever dealt with for nickle and diming users on upgrades.

Re:Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds (1)

snake_dad (311844) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308843)

Mozilla is still in beta. Keep that in mind as well.

At least the Mozilla people admit that it's still in beta...

Re:Consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds (1)

hconnellan (31637) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308853)

I submitted bug #99832. It spite of my best effort in research it turned out to be a duplicate of #99057, #98355 and #95957.

Lots of bugs == high quality (3, Insightful)

HoserHead (599) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308704)

Unlike what most people think, a high bug count does not equal poor quality. A high bug count is actually a very good indicator of excellent testing, and this testing leads to high quality.

Mozilla is a very high-profile application, and is also very complex. A lot of people report bugs in it, ranging from showstopping to very trivial. I'm personally very encouraged that Mozilla has such good testing, because it directly translates into a better product.

Bottom line is: the more bugs, the better. (This is something a lot of people don't seem to recognise, particularly with Free Software development. When that user reports a bug you don't like, thank them instead of closing it without fixing it! They're contributing to the quality of your software!)

Re:Lots of bugs == high quality (1)

bribecka (176328) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308729)

A high bug count is actually a very good indicator of excellent testing, and this testing leads to high quality.

I don't think it's so much that a high bug count indicates quality, but the number of those bugs that are actually fixed, of course. Supposedly Win95 shipped with something like 50K unresolved bugs (could be wrong)--in that case, 50K bugs found != quality.

Re:Lots of bugs == high quality (2)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308792)

"Supposedly Win95 shipped with something like 50K unresolved bugs"

Which is a meaningless figure since a bug can be anything from the rather important "Win95 fails to boot on Tuesdays" to the less important "Win95 looks horrible in 16 color mode" to the trivial/inane "Win95 lacks a space invaders-type game".

When your bug system covers everything from show stoppers to feature requests, the bug count becomes fairly meaningless, other than as a source of potential work for the developers.

Re:Lots of bugs == high quality (-1)

n3r0.m4dski11z (447312) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308732)

Unlike what most people think, a high bug count does not equal poor quality.

so i guess i wont be hearing any more flames about windows. since it has the most bugs of all, it must be of the highest quality!

High bug count == sloppy programmers (2)

Otis_INF (130595) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308793)

Hammering in code is one of the things in programming that can be a cause of bugs. The more accurate and less sloppy your programmers are, the less bugs WILL BE FOUND during testing. The quality of testing is therefor not determinable from the amount of bugs found. Though: m_iQualityOfProgrammers = CalcProgrammerQuality(iAmountBugsFound, iQualityOfTesting);

So 'the more bugs, the better', please... the best thing you can have after excessive tests is 0 bugs.

Re:Lots of bugs == high quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308829)

ROFL.

You hipocrite cunts.

When Windows 2000 had 64,000 bugs it was EVIL!

Wankers.

Re:Lots of bugs == high quality (1)

BJH (11355) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308846)

64,000 unresolved bugs at release, TYVM. This article is about 100,000 bugs in total (most of them are resolved).

BTW, is your name really "Wankers"? How... unusual.

Hey I found one!! (1)

canning (228134) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308705)

We also get a lot of duplicates (which dedicated triagers sort out)

Slashdot's 100,000,000 bug.

good thing? (0, Troll)

niall111 (449279) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308713)

I fail to see how this is a good thing for Mozilla, or Bugzilla. How many bugs are in the latest version of IE? It seems kind of silly to be proclaiming this as a great proof of the scalability of Mozilla. If MS were proclaiming, "We just fixed the 10,000th bug in IE 6.0!", people would do nothing but talk about how the software should have been thoroughly tested, and there should have been NO bugs! Sorry, i'm just bitter against everything linux now that i've wasted 80$ on Mandrake 8.0 only to find out linux is a big waste of my time on the computer. Maybe when I have 2 years to waste learning a non-intuitive OS, i'll give it a shot again. And maybe every few days, I can go download the latest version of every piece of software I use. Including the most basic of them, the browser. Then, I guess i'd also get to recompile it, to make sure it works with my specific version of linux, and hopefully work with my specific processor. Of course, it will still have about 10,000 of those 100,000 bugs that have been reported, but not yet fixed. Great. Talk about your mainstream-ready OS.

You Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308748)

READ the article! It's about the scalability of BUGZILLA, not Mozilla.
Jeeez, just like a luser. Ya gotta hold their friggin' hand.

Re:good thing? (2)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308786)

I think it was proof of the scalability of Bugzilla (mozilla's bug reporting tool) that they were talking about.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience with Linux.

Re:good thing? (1)

Kilobug (213978) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308788)

First, ot was not a proof of the scalability of Mozilla, but of Bugzilla.

Second, you must notice that a "bug" for Bugzilla is not only a bug, it's also feature requests.
Remove all features requests, duplicates, and invalid bugs, and the number will drop very fast.

Third, it's not the number of actual bugs, but the number of bugs reported and fix since the start of the Mozilla project, long ago. And most of them are fixed today.

The problem with MS is not that they have thousands of bugs, is that they release products as stable with thousands of bugs. I'ld be interesting to see the number of bugs fixed by the IE team since IE 3.0 from IE 6.0, including all internal bugfixes on versions that were never released.

Fake (0)

mnordstr (472213) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308724)

This was the actual 100 000th bug:

Error: [Exception... "Component returned failure code: 0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE) [nsIRDFContainer.Init]" nsresult: "0x80004005 (NS_ERROR_FAILURE)" location: "JS frame :: chrome://communicator/content/bookmarks/bookmarksO verlay.js :: anonymous :: line 594" data: no] Source File: chrome://communicator/content/bookmarks/bookmarksO verlay.js Line: 594 build 20010914

But they changed it to 100 006 instead, to use this bug as a celebration bug. That's no fun! Now they don't have a 100 000th bug because they went and poked it with a stick...

Nothing to be proud about. (0, Troll)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308726)

This proves its scalability.

No it's not. It only proves that during development, more than 100,000 bugs were introduced. Nothing to be proud about.

Scalability can be proved by checking other factors and I do think mozilla is a Big Thing(tm).

Re:Nothing to be proud about. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308807)

Uh, it's the scalability of the Bugzilla tracking software they're referring to, not the scalability of Mozilla. Mozilla.org has two major products: Mozilla, and Bugzilla. The story is about the high quality of Bugzilla, not of Mozilla. While Mozilla is still not quite ready for prime time (but it will be d good when it is), Bugzilla is quite ready for prime time.

Topic for the trolls.. (1)

Jagin (243283) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308737)

I don't think this should have been posted... the overwhelming majority of those bugs are duplicates or closed. But all the postings we'll see will either say that:

Mozzy is buggy as hell since it has 100,000 bugs (duh! read!)

It can't be scalable if they post a cached link! (not about hardware!)

100,000 isn't large when considering system architecture (valid)

So... what's the point?

Hypocricy (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308743)

I cannot believe this. Slashdotters were tearing down Windows 2000 (which includes Internet Explorer) because it had a couple of thousands known (harmless) documented bugs.

Mozilla has 100,000 show stopping bugs IN JUST A BROWSER ALONE. It's pathetic really.

For 2 and a half years the Mozilla project has been going on and it has shown nothing more than that they are a bunch of incapable arrogant whiners who are not able to code their way out of a paper bag, let alone create a real web browser.

Time after time, milestone after milestone, this team has shown the world how sucky an open source product can be. It's a disgrace for the open source community that we let these guys rape the original Netscape codebase. In 2,5 years they've only managed to make things worst: more bugridden, slower, more memory hoggin', less adherent to standards, etc etc etc. Please, stop this project.

Re:Hypocricy (1)

markyd (517099) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308789)

100,00 show stopping bugs?

Not really. One of those is mine and its a spelling error in the relase notes. Show stopping, I think not. Try reading the post, and you'll see what it says about development bugs not even reaching the end users.

I realise you posted soley to produce an angry reaction (trolling), so I'm not even gonna argue with your over-opinionated final paragraph.
Mark

100,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308745)

Man, and you people were complaining that Windows 2000 has 65,000 bugs!

MS Bugtracking system Cannot... (1)

da5idnetlimit.com (410908) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308865)

Go Over 65535 before a Buffer Overflow...
8)

Re:100,000? (2)

DrXym (126579) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308896)

100,000 bugs in total & mostly fixed - not 100,000 open bugs.

Hello, scalability? (0, Offtopic)

dmccarty (152630) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308769)

bugzilla.mozilla.org just hit bug 100,000 (cached). This proves its scalability.

If Microsoft made the same announcement about one of their products I don't think we'd be applauding them for their scalability!

Re:Hello, scalability? (1)

hwaara (226026) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308868)

If Microsoft made the same announcement about one of their products I don't think we'd be applauding them for their scalability!

This isn't Microsoft. What's your point? ;)

Overlooked fact (4, Insightful)

RogrWilco (522139) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308774)

Mozilla has yet to reach 1.0, which they stated would be the equivalent of a production release. For al the linux bashers, that's 100,000 bugs which never made it to the release product.
Similarly, why did MS build bug reporting tools into XP and IE 6? To build a better product. Too bad that they are all basically new versions. Anyone know if this is in the final release?

Windows XP = Windows 95 v5.0
95->98->98se->me->XP!

Re:Overlooked fact (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308820)

No, actually Windows XP is Windows NT 6 or 5.1 or so. It is not a direct derivative of Windows 95; at least, it is no more so than Windows 95 is a direct derivative of CP/M. Windows NT was a complete redesign of the Windows product, and MS has finally gotten around to building a home consumer version of it.

Wow....big deal! (0, Troll)

LoPingHo10 (515096) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308810)

100,000 bugs. If the database is using long int's then (2 ^ 32) - 1 would be more impressive. 100,000 is 0.005% of what the system should be able to handle. Any programmers out there see 100,000 and just laugh. Hey...now I can put my site up here if I can reach the 100,000 mark? Why don't we all post ours.

Funny... (1)

_LORAX_ (4790) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308812)

I just started using mozilla last week a couple od days before 0.9.4 and propmtly upgraded to 0.9.4 for the stop popups feature.

Since I have started using it again I remember now how things should work. I use almost not cookies, I have it set to prompt and remeber so it was sorse the first day or so, but has gotten much better.

Mozilla is a champion for privacy and security, with only one last privacy bugaboo that I feel needs fixing before I switch permematly from pine. That feature is no email should initiate network access ( HTML images, url's, css,... ) becase it;'s an easy way for the marketers to validate the address.

Cheers to all those that have worked on the project.

bugs != bugreports (1)

hwaara (226026) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308813)

A common problem with people, as previously said, is that some people take "bugreports" as "bugs" and vice versa.

A bug report is always a good thing, regardless whether it's a WORKSFORME bug, INVALID or will get FIXED. It means good testing.

A bug, on the other hand, is something that needs fixing and is never good.

See the difference? :)

On small problem I've had... (3, Insightful)

pberry (2549) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308825)

...is trying to figure out where a bug should be filed. The bug page is daunting, especially if you aren't familiar with modules and how they are broken down.

I only mention this because I run the nightly builds just about everyday and they ask us to help file bug reports.

This problem may be a combintation of bugzilla user interface and the complexity of the mozilla project though, and not just one or the other...

But if the developers like it, that is probably more important ;-)

Re:On small problem I've had... (2, Informative)

sconest (188729) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308833)

Just try to do your best.
One of the part of bug triaging is to be sure that the component is the correct one.

Re:On small problem I've had... (1)

hwaara (226026) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308887)

...is trying to figure out where a bug should be filed. The bug page is daunting, especially if you aren't familiar with modules and how they are broken down.

1. Go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org 2. Click the big "Report a Bug" link

then just follow the instructions.

Couldn't be easier!

Debian has more bugs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308828)

Debian hit 100,000 bugs several months ago. Right now they are past the 110k mark.

For those of you that aren't good at math that means that Debian basically 0wn5 Mozilla.

Debian still #1 after all these years!!!

Are there any Bugzilla GUIs? (3, Interesting)

magi (91730) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308838)

I have always found the web interface awfully awkward to use. Are there any frontend client applications for it?

While web interfaces are easy to make and maintain, client apps are usually much more user friendly. Most importantly, they make it possible to add features on the client side without need to modify the web service. That's why we have mail and news clients - web email systems generally suck and are difficult to improve without the involvement of the provider of the server software.

I would imagine that a GUI would be especially useful for the developers, as it could update the bug lists without having to refresh web pages, etc. It could also hold a local copy of the database, for doing searches, etc. Well, on small databases at least.

The GUI could also be integrated to the apps. For example, KDE already has some nice support for sending bug reports from applications, but it could be improved, especially for searching existing bugs. Eliminating the use of web browser entirely would be a great improvement for making bug reports.

Re:Are there any Bugzilla GUIs? (1)

riggwelter (84180) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308881)

That's pretty well what GNOME's bug-buddy is, if you file a bug report using that, it goes into the GNOME bugzilla, and is filed under your email address if you've registered with it.

I think it could interface to other bugzillas with a recompile...

About that competition... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308852)

To an RT [fsck.com] user, this article comes off as a troll. Covad's installation of RT has long since passed the 500K-ticket mark.

ALERT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308864)

Attention all trolls: LNUX 1.01 -0.13 -11.40%

Thank you.

Hello!?!? Read the post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#2308876)

What the poster is saying is *NOT* that Mozilla is scalable because of the 100,000 bugs, but that Bugzilla is scalable because it is easily handling keeping track of 100,000. All you people who are asking "how does 100,000 bugs make Mozilla scalable?" should READ FIRST, TYPE SECOND.

Commercial use (1)

bvankuik (203077) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308879)

For your interest:

A friend of mine works for a small company in the business of selling a Java-driven backoffice which pushes stock-information. They use the BugZilla system and are happy about it.

bugzilla vs. debian bug tracking vs. sourceforge (3, Interesting)

Zooko (2210) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308886)

Is bugzilla better than debian bug tracking? Which is the best bug tracking system?


Personally, I refuse to use SourceForge's bug tracking system because it requires that I fiddle with a mouse and click on little HTML widgets and then wait for a few seconds while the form is submitted to see if it worked. I have better things to do with my time than waste it trying to use HTML and HTTP as a user interface.


I really love debian's bug tracking system, and the `reportbug' package, which allows me to do all my bug reporting with good old e-mail, from the command line, as God intended.


Regards,


Zooko

What the numbers really mean (1)

havardw (180104) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308894)

In excess of 100 000 bug reports have been filed against Mozilla and associated products (such as the web site and bugzilla itself) since bugzilla opened. As of right now, 79 913 of these bugs are fixed, leaving us with ~20 000 open bugs.

Many of these bugs are duplicates not yet discovered, many are feature requests, and some are bugs for tracking other bugs ("meta bugs").

The number of open bugs in the "Browser" component right now is 11 619, which is closer to the real bug count. (But the number is still too large, see above)

Loophole in the GPL (-1)

sales_worldwide (244279) | more than 13 years ago | (#2308902)

We have some problems in the linux world. First, we jave the issues of RTLinux and their patent, wiht FSF commenting on it recently: http://www.gnu.org/press/2001-09-14-RTLinux.html)

Then we have PowerVR where they are not releasing the source (also a recent slashdot post).

And now, we have a loophole allowing these people to get away with it. There is a company already explooiting this loophole. Read on:

I work in the embedded hardware field. Today we received some hardware from a manafacturer, who uses linux to run on their hardware. In the past I was given all source code to their product, as they are obliged to, given that their code is derived from the linux kernel itself. However, today I was told that they will no longer be distributing their source, since they have managed to incorporate all of them into a loadable kernel module (which they are referring to as a "binary only runtime loadable driver". Apparently linus torvalds has recently said that binary drivers can be distributed in binary only form. From my knowledge of the previous source this company released, they have gone to considerable effort to move all of their code into this "binary driver". It is not so much a binary driver, as a real time linux system hacked into a driver. I suspect they intercept certain system calls to achieve this - I am in the process of checking the binary to find out.

I am under an NDA so cannot disclose more information, nor my name.

But is this against the GPL? I think it is, and given that my name exists in the linux kernel too, I am upset and would like to do something about this - but apparently only Torvalds has the right to sue them - is that true? (But he won't, since he has said binary only drivers are OK). And where exactly do we draw the line between a derived linux kernel and the same thing implemented as a loadable module?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?